Refinement for user interface designs

Formal approaches to software development require that we correctly describe (or specify) systems in order to prove properties about our proposed solution prior to building it. We must then follow a rigorous process to transform our specification into an implementation to ensure that the properties we have proved are retained. Different transformation, or refinement, methods exist for different formal methods, but they all seek to ensure that we can guide the transformation in a way which preserves the desired properties of the system. Refinement methods also allow us to subsequently compare two systems to see if a refinement relation exists between the two. When we design and build the user interfaces of our systems we are similarly keen to ensure that they have certain properties before we build them. For example, do they satisfy the requirements of the user? Are they designed with known good design principles and usability considerations in mind? Are they correct in terms of the overall system specification? However, when we come to implement our interface designs we do not have a defined process to follow which ensures that we maintain these properties as we transform the design into code. Instead, we rely on our judgement and belief that we are doing the right thing and subsequent user testing to ensure that our final solution remains useable and satisfactory. We suggest an alternative approach, which is to define a refinement process for user interfaces which will allow us to maintain the same rigorous standards we apply to the rest of the system when we implement our user interface designs.

[1]  Judy Bowen,et al.  Formal refinement of informal GUI design artefacts , 2006, Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC'06).

[2]  John Derrick,et al.  Refinement in Z and Object-Z , 2001 .

[3]  Judy Bowen,et al.  Using formal models to design user interfaces: a case study , 2007 .

[4]  Fabio Paternò,et al.  Tool support for designing nomadic applications , 2003, IUI '03.

[5]  Bob Fields,et al.  Exploring Design Options Rationally , 1995, DSV-IS.

[6]  Benjamin Michotte,et al.  USIXML: A Language Supporting Multi-path Development of User Interfaces , 2004, EHCI/DS-VIS.

[7]  David A. Carrington,et al.  Assessing usability from formal user-interface designs , 2001, Proceedings 2001 Australian Software Engineering Conference.

[8]  Jacob Eisenstein,et al.  XIML: a common representation for interaction data , 2002, IUI '02.

[9]  Judy Bowen,et al.  Refinement for User Interface Designs , 2008, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Carroll Morgan,et al.  Programming from specifications (2nd ed.) , 1994 .

[11]  Greg Reeve,et al.  A Refinement Theory for µ-Charts , 2005 .

[12]  Judy Bowen,et al.  Formal Models for Informal GUI Designs , 2007, FMIS@ICFEM.

[13]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  Communicating sequential processes , 1983, CACM.

[14]  Eerke Albert Boiten,et al.  Refinement in Z and Object-Z: Foundations and Advanced Applications , 2001 .

[15]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  Communicating sequential processes , 1978, CACM.

[16]  WirthNiklaus Program development by stepwise refinement , 1971 .

[17]  Fabio Paternò,et al.  One Model, Many Interfaces , 2002, CADUI.

[18]  Carroll Morgan,et al.  Programming from specifications , 1990, Prentice Hall International Series in computer science.

[19]  Steve Reeves,et al.  µ-Chart-Based Specification and Refinement , 2002, ICFEM.

[20]  Fabio Paternò,et al.  An Approach to the Formal Specification of the Components of an Interaction , 1990, Eurographics.

[21]  Michael D. Harrison,et al.  Mapping user requirements to implementations , 1995, Softw. Eng. J..

[22]  Michael D. Harrison,et al.  A representational approach to the specification of presentations , 1997, DSV-IS.

[23]  Michael D. Harrison,et al.  Abstract Interaction Objects , 1993, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[24]  Niklaus Wirth,et al.  Program development by stepwise refinement , 1971, CACM.